Category Archives: Democracy

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Posted on by
2

I am indebted to right_writes for drawing my attention to something which has rather tickled my fancy. I could be spectacularly late to this little party, unfortunately my sorties over the blogosphere has been very limited recently and I’ve let my reading list slip a little, so apologies if this is old news to you.

I’m referring, and have been referred to, the Harrogate Agenda. This sounds like the title of a Jasper Fforde book (and as an aside if you’ve not read any of his work I recommend you go out and buy or download some of it immediately, his Thursday Next series is close to perfection) but it is as well a thought out proposition as I have come across in a long time.

I shall detail it below:

1. The people are sovereign: The sovereignty of the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland shall be recognised by the Crown and the government of our nations. The people in their collective form, by giving their consent, comprise the ultimate authority of their nations and the source of all political power;

2. Local democracy: The foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to the national government;

3. Elected Prime Ministers: To enable separation of power, prime ministers shall be elected by popular vote; they shall appoint their own ministers, with the approval of parliament, to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; no prime ministers or their ministers shall be members of parliament or any legislative assembly;

4. All legislation subject to consent: No legislation or treaty shall take effect without the direct consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded, and that no legislation or treaty shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people;

5. No taxes or spending without consent: No tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government except with the express permission of the majority of the people, renewed annually on presentation of a properly authenticated budget which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures;

6. A constitutional convention: Parliament, once members of the executive are excluded, convenes a constitutional convention to draw up a definitive codified constitution for the people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which shall recognise their sovereign status and their inherent, inalienable rights and which shall be subject to their approval.

There’s really nothing I can add to it at all. It seems to stem from Richard North’s blog, but that’s about as much as I know, I’m so far outside this that I may as well be on a different continent.

All I can say is that I support it wholeheartedly, and at the risk of falling into the trap of hyperbole, it does rather put me in mind of a document written by some colonialists prior to a little spat a few years ago. Brevity and clarity, two things that are sadly lacking in political documents today.

A Fail of Two Cities.

Posted on by
2

(Once again apologies for the paucity of posting, have been exceptionally busy recently).

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I don’t like the BNP. I disagree with pretty much every single policy they have, barring one. I believe (and I stand to be corrected) that they espouse withdrawing from the EU. On that policy they and I have common ground.

The fact that I don’t like the BNP should not detract from the fact that neither do I like the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems or the Greens. It isn’t a question of degrees of disliking, it is a simple formula; if the number of policies a party has that I agree with is fewer than the number of policies a party has that I disagree with, then I do not like them. For some reason it seems to be OK for me to dislike the big three as long as I dislike the BNP more. Well I don’t, I hold them all in equal disdain.

It may have escaped your notice, but I doubt it, that we are not far from the London Mayoral election. From the coverage it is getting in the national press you’d think it was an election for Mayor of the British Isles, but no, it is just for one city. Indeed tomorrow sees the election for French President. This is geographically closer to me being just over forty miles from my front door, whereas London is fifty. The two are equally important to me, that is to say not at all, I don’t have a vote and neither of the victors will be passing legislation that effects me, so Londoners can elect Pierre the Pig Farmer from Perpignan if they like and Jean Frog can elect Ken Livingstone, I don’t care.

However, here is the difference between London and Paris. The French equivalent, in as much of being certain to battle for third place, of Brian Paddick is Marine Le Pen, the leader of the ‘far right’ Front National. I don’t know if she is from the far right, she certainly seems more moderate than her father, but she is for EU withdrawal, so she’ll be branded far right whatever. So scared is Sarkozy of shipping huge amounts of his support to the FN that he has done the unthinkable (in this country) and tried to encroach on their territory by making tough noises on immigration and so forth.

In the sort of earnest political debate programmes that France specialises in, Le Pen has been given equal billing, and an equitable amount of time has been spent in examining her policies. She’s got the right amount of nominations and is therefore as legitimate as any of the other candidates for the job.

Ninety miles north of Calais and it’s a very different story. You see the candidates are pulling out of a debate on BBC London because Carlos Cortiglia is taking part. Who he? Well the man with the least British name in history is the BNP candidate for London Mayor. He has fulfilled the same criteria as every other candidate, and yet for some reason the other candidates have decided that he must not be allowed the same exposure and scrutiny as the others.

Why?

Announcing his withdrawal, Mr Livingstone said: “The far right want to destroy our democracy and stand for the elimination of our basic rights. They cannot be treated as a legitimate part of politics.

Absolutely Ken, true to form there. How can we have democracy when people are allowed to stand as an equal in an election and exercise their right to free speech? Irony, much?

Despite being so wrong that I find it startling even for him, at least Ken qualifies his stance. The Greens can’t even manage that:

A Green Party spokesman also said Ms Jones “would not share a platform or a debate” with the BNP’s candidate Carlos Cortiglia.

That’s it. No discussion. I have decided it is so. The BNP will be frozen out of the process because I say it is the right thing to do.

Meanwhile the Tories and LimpDims have decided to pretend that they weren’t sure if they were going anyway. Perhaps they were washing their hair that night?

Mr Johnson’s campaign team, meanwhile, said they were offered a debate “with all four candidates” but had not yet confirmed because of an existing “time clash”.

The BNP’s involvement was “not discussed”, a spokeswoman for the Conservative mayor said, but added: “Boris would not share a stage with the BNP.”

Lib Dem Brian Paddick has withdrawn too, but a spokesman said it was not a result of the BNP’s participation.

What are they scared of? Racism isn’t contagious and surely the best way to discredit the BNP is to listen to what they have to say and then defeat their argument. It’s a novel concept, it’s called debate. Perhaps they’re concerned because old Carlos has paid his taxes, or hasn’t been shagging people behind his wife’s back, or didn’t instruct his officers not to arrest people for committing a crime when he was Dep. Asst. Commissioner for the Met?

I find it remarkable on a weekend when people are jumping up and down about the F1 race going ahead in Bahrain because TPTB don’t allow democratic process there, that a majority of people here seem to find a legitimate political party being excluded from the democratic process to be an acceptable way to carry on.

Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

That pesky democracy thing.

Posted on by
3

The EU hate democracy. They know best, dammit, and it really is the most intolerable imposition when people won’t do as they’re bloody told. How are they supposed to usher in their era of utopia and solidarity when people go around voting for stuff that isn’t in the plan?

No, it must be stopped. That’s easy enough in their own institutions, there’s not a hope in hell of me or you getting a say in the selection of the Commissars and the parliament is just a large rubber stamp, like the enormous gatherings you used to see in the USSR (as an aside I attended a talk given by Nigel Farage as part of a season of political debates hosted by a local university the other night, during the Q&A session one of the Labour/Common Purpose/EU placemen who’d been parachuted in actually used the phrase ‘democratically elected’ in respect of Van Rompuy. I and a number of the audience had to take five minutes to change our under crackers after that. Farage spoke without notes whilst the placemen were reading from sheets, posing questions which had no doubt been handed to them. Farage won, even accounting for my bias.)

But how to do this with national parliaments? They’ve demonstrated they can unseat a democratic leader when the need presents itself. But how to ensure you keep control? After all, elections have to come eventually.

The answer is simple, you make all the parties sign an agreement that states when election time comes around, the electorate will have no alternatives, they will only be able to vote for what the EU wants.

I’ll let the BBC take over:

They [the Eurozone ministers] have also insisted that all major Greek parties give an assurance that the cuts will be enacted regardless of who wins a general election scheduled for April.

That’s it. No comment on that from the BBC at all. Democracy removed at a stroke. This is one step from all parties having to submit their manifestos for approval. And it merits one sentence in a BBC report.

Antonis Samaras, whose New Democracy party is a member of the governing coalition, has hinted that he would try to renegotiate the bailout deal after the election.

Reports say he has refused to give a written assurance that the cuts would be enforced.

Naughty Antonis, bad Antonis.

New Democracy is expected to win the election.

Hence the rushed insistence that all the politicians sign up to the EU’s demands. Because now it’s looking a little shaky again, the other day it was all settled, now it’s up in the air. Someone the EU doesn’t like might win and we can’t have that. Note that Samaras hasn’t said that he’d phone Olli Rehn and tell him to go stick his head in a pig, he hasn’t said he’d ensure that a dirty great default went ahead (surely the best thing for Greece), no he said that he’d TRY to renegotiate terms.

Well who does he think he is? How dare he make a statement to be put in front of the electorate, get elected on that promise and then try to represent those who put him in charge? No, no, no, that will never do.

On Sunday, Greek MPs approved extra cutbacks, but coalition parties had to expel more than 40 deputies for failing to back the bill.

Had to? Had to? Since when was representing your constituents and saying ‘hang on a minute, I don’t agree with this’ a disciplinary offence? What sanction was available to use against those parties who decided not to expel their deputies?

Just as here, never for one moment think that your MP is there to represent you, they are there to push through the wishes of their party machinery and increasingly the agenda of the EU.

It’s happened there, it’ll happen here. This is why the next time the Conservatives call round my gaff I’ll send them away with a flea in their ear. Labour only field paper candidates down here, and the LimpDims don’t call any more, because I just laugh at them when they do. Cameron’s three line whip over the referendum debate means that I would never vote for his party whilst he had any influence over it, he’s decided that we need to stay in, and therefore I can just sit down and shut up. Uh-huh, no way sunshine. Bad news for Daniel Hannan, a man I have a good deal of respect for, but that’s one vote he’s down in the next Euro elections.

As for Julian Brazier, I wrote to him a fortnight before the debate entreating him to vote in favour of a referendum, he didn’t reply until after the vote, when he voted against. In his letter he told me he was a Eurosceptic. His voting record suggests otherwise. So he can bog off as well.

There will be no orderly default by Greece, there will be no amicable departure from the EU by the UK. It will only end in violence, destruction, fire, blood and death. I am resigned to that now.

I only hope that those responsible for ensuring this response from us, the voiceless population of an entire continent, will be dealt with as traitors and criminals.

Seven weeks.

Posted on by
3

Screen shot lifted from here.

Seven weeks, until a radical prophecy could come to pass.

From the above it is starting to look increasingly unlikely that Greece will get its next bowl of gruel in six weeks’ time. It is common sense, they have to kick the habit, saddling a debt ridden man with more debt is not going to solve the issue. Only default, only devaluation and only a return to the Drachma can save Greece.

But this is about more than Greece’s economy, it is about Greece’s people. What has happened to them is shocking, sure they voted for it, it was their electorate that kept hiding the credit card bills under the carpet, but at least it was their choice.

What happened when Papandreou stated he was going to take the question to the electorate was an affront to the nation that invented democracy. Possibly the government could have done with changing, but that wasn’t my decision to make, it certainly wasn’t the EC’s decision to make, but they unseated him anyway.

Now the Greeks have a puppet, a place-man in the big chair who used to be a big noise at the ECB. A puppet who has fortnightly meeting with three other unelected puppet-masters, from the IMF, the ECB and the EC who jet in once a fortnight and tell him what he will do and what he will not do.

Youth unemployment runs at around 50%, the fabric of Greek society is crumbling and the economy has gone from recession into depression. They’ve lost more than their dignity and their sovereignty; they’ve lost hope. There’s not a damn thing they can do about it. Nothing. They can’t vote their leader out, they’ve been denied their democratic right. Things are desperate.

People who have lost hope do desperate things. Ask Ceaucescu, ask Gaddafi, ask the military leaders of Egypt and the erstwhile President.

In six weeks, the cheques will bounce, and the scenes of civil disobedience will take one week to degenerate into all out revolution. The Arab Spring will cross the Med.

The Greek army will come in and restore order. It will not stop there.

The Greek army will send the ‘troika’ away without a handshake, without coffee. They’ll probably threaten to shoot their jet down.  They’ll not kow-tow to the Brussels mandarins, and what then?

Can we see the EU tolerating a military regime in their midst? They’ll tolerate a regime without democratic legitimacy, they hate democracy, but it has to be their un-democratic regime. What do they do then?

Expel Greece from the EU? What if the other member states refuse to sanction such a move? What if that gives military brass in other EU countries ideas?

Send in the troops? Whose troops? No NATO member is going to sanction their troops invading another NATO member’s territory.

The big ugly pot is coming to the boil, and the Euro-elite, so keen to by-pass the grubby and inconvenient democratic stuff, so full of arrogance and vanity, will see their dream disintegrate. The real tragedy is that it will be paid for in blood.

17%

Posted on by
4

That is the proportion of MPs who think that we can be trusted, should be allowed, to have some sort of say in the way our country is governed.

I never for one moment expected the motion to be carried, but such a paltry number, 111 in total, is shameful.

A dark day for democracy, and one that shakes what little faith I had in our Parliament to such a degree that I now accept without reservation that they do not serve us, are not interested in our opinion and hold us in total contempt.

It makes me very sad.

Don’t it make you proud?

Posted on by
2

Yes, The Economist’s Democracy Index ranks us 19th out of 26 in democracies around the world.

Clicking image should, viagra like, make it bigger.

Yes, the UK, not as good as Malta or Luxembourg, slightly better than Mauritius and Costa Rica.

Still, could be worse, the Italians and French are ranked under ‘flawed democracies’.

It’s the only time I can think that I’d like the European parliament to be recognised, I wonder which category they would come under? Hybrid regimes, perhaps? That’d put them in the same category as such luminaries as Hong Kong SAR, Albania, Malawi and Palestine.

It’s enough to make you swell with pride.

For the people.

Posted on by
2

Twitter was alive last night with talk of events down at the council chamber where Lambeth council do their business. There have been a number of demonstrations against the cuts to public spending which are planned by the council and things came to a head last night when, well, I’ll let ‘uncutter’ at Indymedia London take over:

Lambeth town hall in Brixton was taken over and occupied by protestors as the council met to vote through budget cuts of tens of millions of pounds. Hundreds of people gathered outside the town hall (as they’d done previously two weeks ago) and at around 7pm took over the chamber chanting “This is what democracy looks like” and “No ifs, no buts, no public services cuts!”, before holding a people’s assembly.

After withdrawing the council members met under a police guard to vote through the cuts. The occupation ended at around 9pm as people marched out after 2 hours of discussions and speeches at the ‘people’s council’.

This sort of thing chills me to the bone. I always get very uneasy when activists and politicians talk about ‘the people’. I’m afraid that in a population of 272,000, a group of hundreds does not represent democracy, it does not even represent double figures of the population in terms of percentage. To try and pass it off as democracy is misleading.

I’m not going to get into the whole Keynsian discussion again, but I will state that I do support public spending cuts, because there is so much that goverment is involved in. that it has no business doing. I do not trust the politicians and civil servants to cut where the fat is, though. They will always protect their own empires and pet projects.

A ‘people’s council’ (sic) does not represent the people. It never can, even the most representative, even handed and well regarded assembly cannot represent the people, it can only represent the majority. I am not convinced that a hastily convened peoples’ council in Lambeth is representative of the majority. This is a term used to marginalise and stigmatise people. What we saw last night was a trailer of things to come, or things that have happened elsewhere. A group of people, through force and violence, establish themselves and then claim to speak for ‘the people’ as if the population is one homogenous mass with identical wishes, desires and aspirations.

This is always a mistake made by authoritarian (mainly left-wing) regimes, people are individuals. What you are doing is trying to project your view of what you think the people should be onto that population. You believe that your ideas and policies are right. Well, I think the same of mine, of course I do, otherwise I wouldn’t hold them, the same holds true for you. The difference between us, is that I do not seek to impose my vision on others. What happens when people do not share you views, do not want your vision? We’ve seen it time and time again, Stalin, Hoxha, Pot, Mao, all ruled in the name of ‘the people’. How many of them were the wrong sort of people? How many of them were imprisoned, executed and subjected to horrific treatment as a result? Kim Jong-Il rules in the name of the people. I didn’t see any election, he was annointed. What do the people think of him? I’m sure his approval rates are through the roof, his population wouldn’t dare express anything but satisfaction. What about Gaddafi? Ask him this morning, he’ll still tell you he’s ruling in the name of the people, it is the enemies of the people who are stirring up trouble, the real people love him. So much do they love him, he would submit, that they are happy that 10,000 lie dead on the streets of Libya. This is what rule in the name of the people looks like.

Let us not kid ourselves here. When you claim you are acting for the people, you are using it as a crutch to prop up your own crumbling credibility. Oh, you know that the majority follow you. You know you have the support of tens of thousands in your borough. You know that everyone is up in arms at the cuts.

Everyone? He asks with eyebrow raised in a questioning fashion.

Well, everyone that counts.

Ah, there we go. No. Not everyone, otherwise in the recent general election your lot would have found themselves with an increased majority. That, no matter how flawed, how un-representative, is the closest we have to democracy in this country. And when people stop counting, that is where the trouble begins.

I’m not suggesting that we’re about to see RAF air strikes on the population of Brixton, but unelected, unaccountable people make odd decisions and have, what appears to me, a skewed view of the world. I’ll give you an example.

I was watching the first episode of Heston’s Mission Impossible on C4 the other night. (The link is to the 4od player) I like Heston, he is imaginative, passionate and practical. His series on the overhaul of the Little Chef menu was very good. In this, the first episode of his new series where he does the same to different sectors of the catering industry, he was working his magic at Alder Hey hospital. No hectoring and lecturing in the style of Jamie Wotsisname here, just getting on with the job.

Notes from a hospital bed is an established critique of the terrible food on offer in our hospitals, so head over there, and you’ll see the form guide. Needless to say, the food given to the kids in the hospital was terrible. Without wanting to come over all lisping and mockney, surely, kids in hospital need decent scran to aid their recovery? Yet they were served dross and plates were returned, untouched. Parents, who have paid for this food, without the option to opt-out, in the form of their taxes, were having to bring in grub for their kids. It is a story reproduced throughout the NHS.

In the first portion of the show, Heston went to the kitchens to investigate and was shown a menu, it looked alright, it transpired it was for the staff canteen, public restaurant and (I really couldn’t believe this) outside functions. The head of catering stated that 90% of food prepared in the hozzie kitchens was fresh, from scratch. The 10% excluded? Yes, the children. The group that is the hospital’s enitre reason for being. Out of a cooking staff of 14, only two were making the childrens’ food. ‘Welcome to the NHS’ was the response from the head of catering.

He would maintain that he is absolutely acting in the best interest of the children. However, there was no communication between the kids and the kitchens.

Gaddafi, Kim and the Lambeth Peoples’ Council would maintain that they are absolutely acting in the best interest of the people. However, there is no communication between the people and the government.

Of course, those occupying Lambeth council chamber last night would say they were different, just as every unelected, unaccountable, dictatorial regime that has gone before is different. This time it will be different, this time we’re not the same as all the others, we care, we know what is wrong, we know the answers. Every time the end result is the same.

When you invoke the name of the people, you are hiding behind a legend, in the same way that Westboro Baptist Church invoke the name of God when they indulge in their revolting homophobic activities. When the Islamic fundamentalists bomb innocent people, or beat, maim and execute people, they do it whilst hiding behind the shield of an unspeaking God, you would no doubt condemn their actions, yet from where I’m sitting, you don’t look so different when you hide behind the shield of a silent supposed majority.

No, you’ll get no support from this quarter.

Is what’s right, right?

Posted on by
1

A few days ago I blogged about the self-determination of Kosovo, and how I did not believe it was right for the ICJ to rule on the country’s fate.

This morning there is a story of the courts overturning a clear and present declaration of the will of the electorate, with a Federal Judge overturning the decision of the people of California to disallow same sex marriages.

This presents me with something of a conundrum. As a Libertarian I belive passionately that if two people decide they want to marry, then that is no-one’s business but their’s. I couldn’t care less if these people are of a different or the same gender. It really is nothing to do with me. As long as both parties are content to enter into the marriage and are doing so of their own free will, then nobody else is being harmed, so there is no need for any scrutiny or permission from anyone else.

Indeed I would also say the same about bigamy, if a man or woman wishes to take two or more spouses, then as long as all the parties, existing and prospective, are aware and content, then I see no problem with this.

I was surprised that the people of California decided to reject the concept of same sex marriages. California has always had a reputation as one of the more tolerant states in the Union, but the decision to reject was made clearly by the electorate.

So now comes the conundrum.

Is it right for the electorate to dictate what two people can do with their lives when that decision has no influence on how other people live theirs? I believe not, the freedom of the individual is paramount.

Is it right that the Courts can then go in and overturn the decision of the electorate? I believe not, as a supporter of democracy, the will of ‘the people’ must be sovereign over the machinery of the State. That apparatus, in a democracy, is there to facilitate the will of ‘the people’.

At the risk of sounding like an EU apparatchik, it would have been better had the people of California voted to accept the concept of same sex marriages. In my opinion, they made the ‘wrong’ decision. However, I have said on a number of previous occasions that in democracy there is no right or wrong decision, merely a decision you agree or do not agree with.

Unfortunately, it seems clear to me that the decision to reject by the people of California can only come down to two issues.

The first is bigotry, that somehow homosexuality is wrong, and despite the fact that the bigot has no intention of engaging in homosexuality, and will not be effected by the act being carried out by two people unconnected to them, they feel that they are in a moral position which requires them to prevent this sort of relationship being given any legitimacy.

This is likely to be underpinned in most cases by the second issue, that being religion. God says it is wrong, therefore we must prevent it. Never mind that should God exist, He is perfectly capable of making his own judgement and implementing his own sanction. Never mind that should God exist, ‘His’ word is without doubt the word of men who wrote on his behalf, in a rambling text which is contradictory both in content and the way that its adherents apply the lessons contained within.

I find it amazing that even now, this document is being used to determine the way people are permitted to live their lives, even if no hurt is being done to others.

It doesn’t help me with my conundrum though. To promote the ignoring of the will of the people because they have come to a decision I do not agree with would make me as bad as those I rail against. To accept that the apparatus of the State can override the will of the people is a concept that I find repugnant, but do I find it as or more repugnant than the idea that the will of the people can prevent peaceful people leading their private lives, with no detriment to anyone else, as they wish?

I don’t know.

The One That Wants To Time Travel . . .

Posted on by
1

What a country has been built over the last thirteen years. When I think back to those first few months of the Labour administration in 1997, I think of the hope that coursed through the veins of the British public, the great and good (and Oasis) queuing up to shake the hand of Blair.

Good God, how did he do it? How did he get them to file into his house like star-struck teenage autograph hunters? Say what you like about Blair, but man, his PR was good in those days.

In 1997 it was going to be different this time. The old remnants of a divided, corrupt and arrogant Conservative party had been swept away, replaced by a shining new Labour party, shorn of the old hateful, envious, nationalising mania of the past; waiting to carry us in to this glorious new Jerusalem to the sounds of masses cheering, screaming guitars and hip dance music.

Truth be told, the Tories really haven’t changed over this last decade, they dress in a more modern fashion, they’ve learned how to present and have dulled that edge which many found so objectionable, but the PR transformation is nowhere near that of Labour in the mid 90’s.

We now look at a Labour government which is just as divided as the Tories ever were under Major, and as far as my memory serves me are more corrupt and light years ahead in the arrogance stakes. That those Tories had to be kicked out in 1997 is without doubt. That a good many people called warnings from the sidelines is well remembered. Did anyone, even New Labour’s most venomous critics, expect what we have now?

The vista of British society and community is as devastated, as unrecognisable as the Haitian capital. If you had shown a picture of today’s Britain to everyone’s thirteen years younger selves in 1997, what would their response have been?

How would they have reacted to see legions losing their lives to infections in hospital? They would have heard of nothing like it since the charnel houses of the Peninsular campaign.

How would they have responded to being told that they would have no choice but to be electronically stripped searched before heading off on their holidays?

How would they have accepted the notion of a government that declared a legally questionable war, especially when the threat to our security was almost nil?

What would they have said upon hearing about real suspicion falling on the government following the death of one of its prime experts in suspicious circumstances, especially when they then decided to bury the records for 70 years, after having him thoroughly smeared and discredited?

How would they have felt upon learning that they would face a good chance of arrest, or at least questioning, for taking pictures of famous landmarks, and being suspected of terrorism by a politicised police force?

What would they have thought about the pandering to the professionally offended, or at least those who quake in their boots at the prospect, to the extent that jobs cannot be advertised with a request for reliable and hard working people?

How would they come to terms with a government that illegally imprisons people in their own houses, freezing their assets and allowing them £10 a week to live, because it is suspected they may be involved in terrorism, whilst the convicted are released early and an increasing underclass can claim the monthly average wage in handouts and are penalised even if they do want to work?

How could they have understood that in a democracy, you would have had to apply for permission from the authorities to hold a demonstration outside parliament?

How would they have stared with incompetence when they learned that they had been lied to over getting a say in the signing away of our sovereignty?

How could they deal with the fact that the lowest earners had seen their tax burden sky-rocket whilst the country attracted more debt than had ever been conceivable?

The list could go on, when you look over this government’s achievements you see nothing but failure, deceit, vanity, hubris and the almost complete humiliation of those who elected them.

It will be different this time, there will be no cheering crowds, no film and pop stars waiting patiently in line to be seen pressing the flesh, no glorious new Jerusalem; there will be the knowledge that there will be no change, and a flinty look in the eye of the electorate waiting for the Tories to show themselves to be as feckless, reckless and thoughtless as Labour, and for an opportunity to remove them from power as soon as possible.

Let’s see how the ‘others’ column does over the next five years. Democracy is not dead in Britain, it is just being born.

Update:

A very interesting item over at Captain Ranty’s place, not a million miles removed from my ramblings.

The One That Is Quivering With Anticipation. . .

Posted on by
Reply

I’m not going to go over old ground, especially as Mac the Knife has done such a capital job.


EU leaders are said to be furious that the Czech Republic is planning to delay signing the Lisbon treaty for up to six months even if the Irish vote “yes” in their referendum next month

I’ve commented before about the huge respect I have for Vaclav Klaus, as Mac points out he’s seen tyranny and supression before, he’s got the T-shirt and can see the EU for what it really is.

And what is it?

Nicolas Sarkozy, who helped to draw up the treaty after the French and Dutch voted against its predecessor, the EU Constitution, has warned Prague that it faces “consequences” if it does not swiftly follow an Irish “yes” with its own ratification.

Yeah, that’s about right. This will be free and democratic, unless we don’t like what you do. Did you notice the fact that an Irish yes is a certainty? Even if they say no, they’ll say yes. Eventually. Or there’ll be ‘consequences’.

Well fuck you, you shortarsed little twat. One would have thought, given your father’s tribulations with the Red Army in Hungary during the war and the Soviet’s actions in Budapest in 1956, that you’d have a fairly sympathetic attitude towards those who fear the worst with the EU. But of course, there’s a big difference here, isn’t there, Nicolas? This time it is you in the big chair with the machinery behind you.

If only our politicians had the brass balls that Klaus has shown. Once again I take my hat off to him, and wonder if Cameron has the integrity to keep his promises.